moondigger

One other consideration that I haven't seen addressed in any of the coverage: Unless the two girls happen to share a birth date, they aren't necessarily 4 years apart. The age difference could be closer to 3 years, or perhaps closer to 5.

When I was in high school, I was dating a girl who was 15 while I was 16. But I turned 17 before she turned 16, so for a couple months there was a '2-year' difference in our ages. A similar situation could be at play in this case.

It doesn't seem likely that the oppsite would be true. i.e., It seems more likely that the age difference is less than four years than it is that it's more than four years. I base this assumption on the way the prosecution and/or media would be likely to sensationalize it if that were true.

chemvictim

moondigger wrote:One of the details in this case is that the parents of the 14 year-old went to the police claiming they wanted something done because they believe the 18 year-old 'made their daughter gay.'

I just saw the parents on tv and they claim they did NOT say that. They also mentioned something about the criminal charges as being a last resort.

moondigger

chemvictim wrote:I just saw the parents on tv and they claim they did NOT say that.

The report I read said that they had.

They also mentioned something about the criminal charges as being a last resort.

A last resort... to what? The girls wouldn't stop seeing each other, so they went to the police?

Whether they are upset about their daughter being gay or not, that doesn't change my perspective on the age difference. When I was in high school, NOBODY, male or female, was prosecuted for a relationship with another high school student. Yes, we thought it a little odd for a senior to date a freshman, but certainly not criminally odd.

kylemittskus

joelsisk wrote:So, agreed that the charges available may be skewed against lesbian sex, but as it still could apply for all male scenario, not sure that makes it antigay.

Still, I wouldn't think an initial felony charge would prevent a plea deal for a non-felony charge. (though I am not in the legal field, so don't know all the nuances of when it may or may not be permitted)

I don't think the law is "anti-gay" in that it is intentionally prejudicial. I do, however, think that there is an interesting scholarly topic for a law review article about the definition of "terrible act" when considering lesbian relationships.

And certainly, the girl could be offered a non-felony deal, but so far, she hasn't been. Hopefully, a big gun attorney will take this case and get her a better deal.

I am with moondigger 100% about the likelihood of prosecution if this were a male. I was just saying that it is prosecute-able so the "stop the hate" thing bothered me. I also completely agree with the high school argument. That was also brought up last night. Freshman/sophomores dating seniors is the opposite of weird. Healthy or not is a different question. But widely accepted by parents, teachers, and students is without question. The 3 year - no crime but 4 year - crime thing is what they call, according to my attorney wife, an "arbitrary line." There has to be a line drawn somewhere so the line is drawn at 18. Some situations will suck, but the line has to exist. However, it is completely within the DA's discretion whether or not to prosecute. And we're back to the normal high school situation where it is rarely prosecuted. So, the question is, why is this being prosecuted when there are, I'm sure, thousands of cases of 18/14 yo relationships.

I think I have made a 180 and do not think this girl should be prosecuted, although I understand that there is a clear legal grounds to do so.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

chemvictim

moondigger wrote:A last resort... to what? The girls wouldn't stop seeing each other, so they went to the police?

Whether they are upset about their daughter being gay or not, that doesn't change my perspective on the age difference. When I was in high school, NOBODY, male or female, was prosecuted for a relationship with another high school student. Yes, we thought it a little odd for a senior to date a freshman, but certainly not criminally odd.

Not arguing with you.

I just happened to see a clip on tv this morning, it didn't give details.

I can't remember anybody being prosecuted in high school either, but I do vaguely remember some parents making threats. The threats were enough.

moondigger

kylemittskus wrote:The 3 year - no crime but 4 year - crime thing is what they call, according to my attorney wife, an "arbitrary line." There has to be a line drawn somewhere so the line is drawn at 18. Some situations will suck, but the line has to exist.

Understood, and agree. My contention is that crossing this particular line, given the subtleties and grey areas, should not result in a felony. Even a state as (supposedly) old-fashioned as Georgia recently modified their laws to make sexual relations between consenting teenagers a misdemeanor rather than a felony.

moondigger

I didn't think you were. Apologies if my reply seemed argumentative. Just continuing the discussion.

I can't remember anybody being prosecuted in high school either, but I do vaguely remember some parents making threats. The threats were enough.

"Stay away from my daughter, or I'll call the police" only really works if the daughter doesn't want to see her paramour, in most cases. Otherwise what happens is that the relationship is kept secret following the threat.

kylemittskus

chemvictim wrote:It does seem a ridiculously unfair punishment considering the "crime." I guess the homosexuality angle is convenient enough to try and draw attention to the girl's case.

To be fair, there have been other cases like this that drew significant media attention that did not involve homosexual acts. A 16 yo boy received oral sex from a 14 yo girl. It was on video (which became proof of the crime). The boy was up for 10 years in prison. If he and the girl had intercourse, though, there would have been no crime. There are some unbelievably draconian laws that really don't make any sense now, not that they ever did.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

moondigger

kylemittskus wrote:To be fair, there have been other cases like this that drew significant media attention that did not involve homosexual acts. A 16 yo boy received oral sex from a 14 yo girl. It was on video (which became proof of the crime). The boy was up for 10 years in prison. If he and the girl had intercourse, though, there would have been no crime. There are some unbelievably draconian laws that really don't make any sense now, not that they ever did.

I'm not sure, but it sounds like you might be describing one of the two Georgia cases for which the Georgia Supreme Court struck down the sentences as grossly disproportionate to the crime. Subsequent to that ruling, the Georgia legislature modified the law to make sex between teenagers a misdemeanor rather than a felony.

kylemittskus

moondigger wrote:I'm not sure, but it sounds like you might be describing one of the two Georgia cases for which the Georgia Supreme Court struck down the sentences as grossly disproportionate to the crime. Subsequent to that ruling, the Georgia legislature modified the law to make sex between teenagers a misdemeanor rather than a felony.

Yep. Football player, scholarship lost. Glad the law changed. And now we have Florida

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

bhodilee

I find him infinitely entertaining, which is all I ask of our politicians anymore. I will give him credit for being possibly the only Republican with the balls to stand up and say, what the Why I oughta... are we doing as Republicans, have we all gone batshit? *paraphrase*

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

coynedj

And speaking of batsh*t, Michelle Bachmann has decided not to run for another term. Which of course has nothing to do with her campaign spending problems, or with her falling popularity back home. No, no, it has nothing to do with that at all.

How long before she gets a show on Fox?

I started out on Burgundy but soon hit the harder stuff. Bob Dylan, Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues

bhodilee

coynedj wrote:And speaking of batsh*t, Michelle Bachmann has decided not to run for another term. Which of course has nothing to do with her campaign spending problems, or with her falling popularity back home. No, no, it has nothing to do with that at all.

How long before she gets a show on Fox?

that's even more certain than death and campaign misappropriation.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

kylemittskus

Proposal to mandate drug tests before receiving unemployment benefits? Thoughts? What if it were extended to welfare, WIC, food stamps (name changed for the third time in CA in recent memory to CalFresh)?

Personally, I think drug tests are a waste of time, money, and pee. They basically only test for marijuana since almost every single other illicitly used substance (legal or prescription) is out of your system within 48 hours or less. And I think marijuana should have been legalized decades ago. F Ronald Reagan.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

bhodilee

kylemittskus wrote:Proposal to mandate drug tests before receiving unemployment benefits? Thoughts? What if it were extended to welfare, WIC, food stamps (name changed for the third time in CA in recent memory to CalFresh)?

Personally, I think drug tests are a waste of time, money, and pee. They basically only test for marijuana since almost every single other illicitly used substance (legal or prescription) is out of your system within 48 hours or less. And I think marijuana should have been legalized decades ago. F Ronald Reagan.

I think if you have money to spend on weed in your system you don't need welfare. Whether or not it's legal is irrelevant to me. Course I also feel if you show up to your Welfare meeting with a Coach purse you should have it revoked as well.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

coynedj

kylemittskus wrote:Proposal to mandate drug tests before receiving unemployment benefits? Thoughts? What if it were extended to welfare, WIC, food stamps (name changed for the third time in CA in recent memory to CalFresh)?

Personally, I think drug tests are a waste of time, money, and pee. They basically only test for marijuana since almost every single other illicitly used substance (legal or prescription) is out of your system within 48 hours or less. And I think marijuana should have been legalized decades ago. F Ronald Reagan.

All the clamoring for drug-testing the poor (unemployment insurance and the like generally doesn’t go to the rich) sounds to me like a back-door criminalization scheme. Marijuana legalization is gathering popular support and some folks are aghast at that, so they decide that if they can’t throw those druggies in jail they should at least try to make them homeless and hungry. This is an attempt at legislated punishment for behavior deemed undesirable, except without the protections and due process that the judicial system has in place. It has no place in America, in my opinion.

Yeah, I’m obviously kind of wishy-washy on the subject.

I started out on Burgundy but soon hit the harder stuff. Bob Dylan, Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues

moondigger

kylemittskus wrote:Proposal to mandate drug tests before receiving unemployment benefits? Thoughts? What if it were extended to welfare, WIC, food stamps (name changed for the third time in CA in recent memory to CalFresh)?

If legislatures want to pass laws requiring drug tests to receive such benefits, then legislators should have to pass the same kinds of tests in order to receive their paychecks.

I have a big problem with such proposals, and it's this: Many of those benefits go to children/other dependents (WIC, food stamps, etc). Cutting them off because one or the other parent tests positive for an illicit substance is asinine. It's not like a toddler or even older children can register for food stamps themselves.

kylemittskus

moondigger wrote:If legislatures want to pass laws requiring drug tests to receive such benefits, then legislators should have to pass the same kinds of tests in order to receive their paychecks.

I have a big problem with such proposals, and it's this: Many of those benefits go to children/other dependents (WIC, food stamps, etc). Cutting them off because one or the other parent tests positive for an illicit substance is asinine. It's not like a toddler or even older children can register for food stamps themselves.

The proposal is only for unemployment benefits. I generally hate the "slippery slope" argument, but I was just wondering what if this were applied further. I'm against it for the unemployment benefits, also, though. I'm against unemployment benefits anyway, but I don't think that marijuana use should be linked with employment ever.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

moondigger

Florida and Kansas have similar laws in place that apply to both unemployment and welfare recipients, and there has been talk about extending the requirement to other kinds of benefits.

I'm completely serious about the hypothetical legislator requirement, though. The justification for such proposals is always, "Why should the taxpayers' money be given to people who are spending it on illicit substances?"

I can understand the sentiment, taken in a vacuum, and pretending that none of the recipients have hungry/needy dependents. But that's not reality. If mom is smoking weed or using other illicit substances, that doesn't mean all of the benefit money goes for such things. Some of it is covering living expenses for the children as well.

And in the end, it takes more of my tax money to pay one legislator than it does to feed/clothe/shelter at least ten poor children. Probably a lot more. Setting aside the question of the constitutionality of such laws, if they exist at all they should apply equally to so-called public servants.

coynedj

Let's look at another angle, and I'm not an expert on this stuff so if I'm wrong on any details I'm sure someone will gently correct me. Fuzzy logic warning - I haven't thought this all through, so this is a thought exercise. Roll with me on this.

Unemployment insurance is not exactly an insurance product, given the political angles played on this topic. But it isn't exactly a "handout" either. Taxes were paid during someone's employment that were targeted for this program, which sure look like insurance premium payments to me. After all, the taxes and the unemployment benefits are directly tied to the income of the person filing a claim (even if they don't cover 100% of the cost, given the jump in unemployment in recent years and the extension of benefits beyond the normal time frame). If premiums are paid on something called insurance, how can we justify saying to someone "we decided that, even though the premiums were paid in, we don't want to pay on your claim because you did something we don't like that's not related to the program or to your claim"?

I started out on Burgundy but soon hit the harder stuff. Bob Dylan, Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues

kylemittskus

I've never thought of unemployment that way. Perhaps it should be for X time period and no more, no extensions, etc.? Like all things as large as the unemployment bureaucracy, I have seen it abused over and over by the low-income, college students I taught. As for the weed thing, makes sense to me. Why can't I do what I want with the money I paid for the "insurance"? The problem is the abuse of it which, I suppose, should be viewed as a problem independent of others.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

chemvictim

I'm against drug testing for assistance. I think it accomplishes nothing other than pleasing the mean-spirited and enriching the testing companies.

As a public servant, I'm a little surprised that I didn't have to be drug tested. The gov't is very interested in my financial status every single year, and what my family members have been up to, and my late payment on my water bill 5 years ago, but drug use is a yes/no question on a form. For the record, I don't use any illegal drugs, ever. But hypothetically, if I did smoke weed on a Saturday, would any reasonable person say I'm impaired by Monday workday? I would still test positive, I think?

Kyle, why are you against unemployment benefits? Isn't it an insurance program of sorts?

joelsisk

chemvictim wrote:For the record, I don't use any illegal drugs, ever. But hypothetically, if I did smoke weed on a Saturday, would any reasonable person say I'm impaired by Monday workday? I would still test positive, I think?

marijuana is legal in Colorado. And we just signed the regs into law yesterday.

kylemittskus

chemvictim wrote:Kyle, why are you against unemployment benefits? Isn't it an insurance program of sorts?

I guess I'm not. See above. The problem is theory and practice are very different things. As an insurance, I'm for it. As a money pit, and I think it is more than an insurance policy now, I'm obviously against it.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

moondigger

jawlz wrote:In my experience, that is rarely true, especially given the inefficiencies that exist in most public-assistance programs.

I can't speak to vaguely-defined "inefficiencies" in the system, as I can't find any hard numbers on that. But here are some hard numbers that are relatively easy to find:

NY State senator salary: $79,500/year, plus $171 per diem for expenses, which can amount to almost $20,000 per year. So that's nearly $100,000 per year.

I'm setting aside the question of unemployment benefits because that's something that recipients have paid into prior to them needing the unemployment benefits, and it makes the math impossible without a lot more information than is readily available to me.

The neediest NY State welfare recipients receive $324 per month in cash, plus medical, dental and eye-care insurance through Medicaid, and food stamps. The cash payout is all that's relevant here, because AFAIK the proposed law tying benefits to drug testing only applies to the cash portion of the benefits. That's $3888 per year. Let's round it to $4000.

That's $4000 of my tax money given to one person on welfare per year, vs. $100,000 in tax money paid to a NY state senator per year. Since state senators get medical, dental, retirement and other benefits not figured above, for this calculation we can say they cancel out the medical and dental benefits given to welfare recipients.

I believe food stamps are paid out of federal money, so that's not relevant to NY state taxes. But even if I'm wrong about that, there's no possible way that the food stamp benefits even come close to the value of the benefits received by state legislators, which are paid completely out of my NY state taxes.

California legislators get $95,300 per year plus $141 per diem for each day they are in session. You do the math.

There are states in which legislators make far less money than this, but the welfare benefits in those states are correspondingly lower as well.

Nonetheless, being a New York state resident, my statement stands: it takes more of my tax money to pay one legislator than it does to feed/clothe/shelter at least ten poor children. Probably a lot more.

And I didn't even figure in what I pay in federal taxes, considering federal benefits for the needy. The math isn't kind there either: Members of Congress earn $174,000 per year plus miscellaneous "expenses."

If the proposed law is such a great idea, then it should apply to everybody receiving money paid out of tax revenues, legislators included.

pseudogourmet98

One thing I see repeated in this thread implies that the benefit receiver is the one who initially paid for the unemployment "insurance" when in reality it was the former employer(s) who paid the tax, NOT the employees.

That would lend more credibility to the concept that the beneficiary could be more closely scrutinized.

That being said, with new (within the last year) EEOC guidance regarding background screening, employers are cautioned against even making negative hiring decisions based on drug conviction (and other criminal) history because it tends to adversely affect blacks and Hispanics. Not that ex-convicts are a protected class under Title VII, just that those individuals are "more likely" to be persons of color than white, and thus it gives the appearance of discrimination.

So trust me when I tell you that even employers are wondering how much they want to know about current employees occasional use of marijuana.

Woot.com is operated by Woot Services LLC.
Products on Woot.com are sold by Woot, Inc., other than items on Wine.Woot which are sold by the seller specified on the product detail page.
Product narratives are for entertainment purposes and frequently employ
literary point of view;
the narratives do not express Woot's editorial opinion.
Aside from literary abuse, your use of this site also subjects you to Woot's
terms of use
and
privacy policy.
Woot may designate a user comment as a Quality Post, but that doesn't mean we agree with or guarantee anything said or linked to in that post.